MINUTES OF A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015
Minutes including a reconsideration hearing for 14A Helmcken Road and various zoning and addressing approvals.
TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL
MINUTES OF A COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 VIEW ROYAL MUNICIPAL OFFICE - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PRESENT WERE:
- Mayor Screech
- Councillor Mattson
- Councillor Rast
- Councillor Rogers
- Councillor Weisgerber
REGRETS: None
PRESENT ALSO:
- K. Anema, Chief Administrative Officer
- S. Jones, Director of Corporate Administration
- P. Hurst, Director of Protective Services
- J. Rosenberg, Director of Engineering
- L. Chase, Director of Development Services
- G. Faykes, Building Official
- J. Chow, Senior Planner
- J. Davison, Planner
- E. Bolster, Deputy Municipal Clerk
- 15 members of the public
- 0 member of the press
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Screech called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOVED BY: Councillor Weisgerber SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
THAT the agenda be amended to include items 8.1 (b)(1)(a) and 14 (Closed Meeting Resolution) and to move items 10 (b-c) immediately before item 8.1 (a);
AND THAT the agenda be approved as amended
CARRIED
3. MINUTES, RECEIPT & ADOPTION OF
MOVED BY: Councillor Weisgerber SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
THAT the minutes of the Council meeting held June 16, 2015 be adopted as presented.
CARRIED
4. MAYOR'S REPORT
5. PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS
6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD
a) E. Duggan, 2428 Chilco Road, stated he prefers the name "Lund" rather than "Cheam" for addressing purposes in the Chilco area.
b) L. Feldman, 2445 Chilco Road, stated she prefers the name "Lund" or "Midland" rather than "Cheam" for addressing purposes in the Chilco area.
7. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES
8. REPORTS
10. BYLAWS
b) Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 927, 2015 A Bylaw to Amend the Town of View Royal Zoning Bylaw with Respect to the Rezoning of 148 Atkins Road
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
THAT Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 927, 2015 be given third reading and adopted.
CARRIED Councillor Mattson voted in the negative
c) Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 928, 2015 A Bylaw to Amend the Town of View Royal Zoning Bylaw with Respect to Creating the CD-9D (Lakeside Village Mixed Commercial) Zone and with Respect to the Rezoning of 430 Six Mile Road
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
THAT staff work with the applicant of the 430 Six Mile Road rezoning to place a covenant on title in regard to hours of operation for the restaurant's patio.
CARRIED Councillors Mattson and Rast voted in the negative
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
THAT Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 928, 2015 be given third reading and adopted;
AND THAT staff work with the applicant of the 430 Six Mile Road rezoning to place a covenant on title in regard to hours of operation for the restaurant's patio.
CARRIED AS AMENDED
8.1 STAFF REPORTS
a) RECONSIDERATION HEARING - Remedial Action - 14A Helmcken Road, Victoria, BC
- Report dated July 2, 2015 from the Building Official
- Letter received June 22, 2015 from R. Batchelor, Batchelor Stamm Law Corporation, Re: 14A Helmcken Road, Reconsideration of Town Decision
- Report dated May 19, 2015 from the Building Official
- Letter dated July 2, 2015 to Mr. & Mrs. Alcock from the Corporate Officer, Re: Reconsideration Hearing at Council Meeting on July 7, 2015 - Regarding Remedial Action Requirements Imposed at 14A Helmcken Road
i) Comments from Municipal Staff
The Director of Protective Services read verbatim the following sections of the July 2, 2015 report:
- recommendation;
- executive summary, noting that both the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director of Protective Services concurred with the recommendation;
- purpose of report;
- background/discussion; and
- alternatives to the staff recommendation.
Council questioned whether the state of the home at 14A Helmcken Road had changed at all since June 2, 2015. The Director of Protective Services noted that to his knowledge no remedial action has taken place but that a temporary fence surrounding the building has been installed. He noted that this fence installation does not comply with the June 2, 2015 order of Council which requires the installation of a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the Property after the building has been demolished and the debris removed from the site.
ii) Comments from the Respondents, Mr. Alcock on behalf of himself and his wife, Mrs. Alcock
R. Batchelor noted that there was already some fencing at the site and that additional fencing was added to ensure complete coverage. Mr. Batchelor stated that his client would like a zoning change considered as he has showed different options that he could do with this property and would like to work with the Town to request a change to the Zoning Bylaw. At this time, however, he noted Mr. Alcock feels the best option is to take the house down to the studs, removing all the drywall and see if it would make sense to renovate the building. Mr. Alcock has received a quote of $12,500 to remove the drywall, insulation, debris and mould. At that point Mr. Alcock could then see what approach would make the most sense and this is work that would be required even if the decision is made at that point to demolish the building. He noted that once the drywall has been removed should demolition need to occur, Mr. Alcock would like the opportunity to have a "kit" house built on the property. Mr. Batchelor summarized by requesting that Council allow the owners the option to first proceed with the initial remediation steps to determine if full remediation is a viable option and then should this option not be viable, that work then proceed with demolition. He further requested that Council provide additional time for building demolition if the remediation option is not supported as the June 2, 2015 order has a demolition deadline of July 9, 2015 which is insufficient time.
Mr. Alcock stated that he was not aware that two inspection fees had been charged. He indicated that he has now paid the additional inspection fee and his property taxes. Mr. Alcock noted that a fence has been installed to deter people from entering the building as there has been several break-ins in the past, but these now have seemed to stop. He requested that removal of drywall up to the studs be allowed before demolition is undertaken and described clean-up and work that has been completed in the past at the property. Mr. Alcock noted different companies that he has been in contact with to do remediation work and costs associated with this work. He stated that he has been informed that lead testing does not need to occur unless there is grinding of paint. Mr. Alcock indicated that without electricity to the building it is difficult to know how long remediation work will take. He said that he does not wish to put a new tenant at one of his adjacent properties through providing 14A Helmcken Road with water and electricity.
D. Lunt, T-Square Design, noted he had been hired by Mr. Alcock in the third week of December 2014 to see what could be done with the building at 14A Helmcken Road. He has been through the building only once about six to eight weeks ago and stated that it was a mess. Mr. Lunt stated that he was told that due to the Town's "do not occupy" order, he had not been able to access the building. He stated there was evidence of mould in the building and should remediation be allowed to occur, the mould will be addressed. A determination on whether to remediate or demolish can only be made once the drywall is removed. He stated that Mr. Alcock's wants to move forward with examining the remediation option and, should it be determined after remediation that demolition needs to occur, this will happen.
Mr. Lunt then provided Council with a drawing to illustrate the potential front elevation post renovation.
Councillor Rast asked the Director of Development Services about substantial alterations vis a vis Zoning Bylaw requirements. The Director of Development Services noted that the current zoning for the site is R-1B (Detached Residential (Medium Lot)) which permits one family use on the site and a maximum height of 7.5 metres. Numerous items, including setbacks and parking, would all be considered if a building permit application is submitted.
Councillor Rast questioned what the process would be should anyone want to go in and explore the building. The Director of Protective Services noted that this is governed through WorkSafe BC and requirements relating to exposure to hazardous conditions would apply. He noted that people are allowed to enter the building to assess it – as described at the June 2, 2015 meeting – and that the "do not occupy" order is to prevent anyone from living ("occupying") in the building.
In response to a question from Councillor Rast, D. Goodfellow, the Town's solicitor, confirmed that, if Council supports the July 2, 2015 staff report recommendation, the deadline for demolition would be thirty days from the date of service of the affirmation.
Mr. Batchelor stated that his client understood that he was not to enter the property even for assessment purposes. He noted that he had challenged what the "do not occupy" order meant with the Director of Protective Services – as he understood it to be that one could not live there – and that he was told they could not enter the building.
In response to a question from Councillor Rogers, Mr. Batchelor clarified that his client would like to be given thirty days to take the building down to its studs to determine if it is worth remediating and, that if a decision is made at that point to demolish the structure that an additional thirty days be granted to demolish it. If a decision is made to retain the building, the owner would take his time to renovate it.
In response to a question from Councillor Weisgerber, Mr. Batchelor confirmed that the fencing is chain-link at the front and wood at the back. He confirmed that fencing upgrade would be required.
Mr. Alcock noted that the fencing installed is similar to fencing that is around properties in the City of Victoria. He noted that his understanding was that no one was to enter the building and this is why Mr. Lunt did not enter the building until approximately two months ago. Mr. Alcock noted the tenants that lived at 14A Helmcken in the past had been reasonable most of the time but that some of their friends were not "all there". He described that he, by law, cannot discriminate against tenants. He stated that he had no control over the people that had been camping at 14A Helmcken Road and that he had been unable to get an "order of possession" which caused him to lose a lot of days in the autumn of 2014.
D. Goodfellow noted that after hearing lengthy submissions and descriptions of the owners' intentions on June 2, 2015, View Royal Council made declarations and resolutions regarding remedial action requirements for 14A Helmcken Road as this property does not comply with Town bylaws or Provincial Codes. She then paraphrased Councillor Rast, Rogers and Weisgerber's closing comments from the June 2, 2015 hearing regarding 14A Helmcken Road.
D. Goodfellow noted that there is willful blindness on Mr. and Mrs. Alcock's part as they had received a warning and Schedule B to the Town's Safe Premises Bylaw No. 652, 2007 on September 25, 2014 and should have known what was required to be done. The property owners deliberately failed to inquire of staff what was required if they needed clarification.
D. Goodfellow stated that there is still no plan in place to allow habitable occupancy of the building. This work would include not only clean up, but also a structural review of the third floor by a structural engineer as well as work by a plumber and certified electrician and inspections. At this time, instead of proceeding with the demolition of the building, the owners want to remove drywall and determine how the building should be dealt with rather than following Council's order.
D. Goodfellow described that the property owners' evidence presented at this meeting echoes the arguments put forward on June 2, 2015 and that they blame others for things they have known about since September 25, 2014. The work required at 14A Helmcken Road is extensive and is not just drywall-related.
D. Goodfellow noted that Mr. Lunt is not a structural engineer and there has not been a review done of the third floor. As well, the electrical system needs to be completed by permit; and the owners are aware that these repairs need to be completed. She noted that Mr. and Mrs. Alcock have already been given an opportunity to remediate the property in a timely manner.
D. Goodfellow stated that during a conversation on May 8, 2015 there was a threat made with respect to an alleged legal question and the Building Official overstepping his authority.
D. Goodfellow discussed that the Town's Safe Premises Bylaw No. 652, 2007, a copy of which was provided to the property owners on September 25, 2014, describes occupancy and the steps to follow regarding access to a "do not occupy" building. Access is not prohibited and those entering the building just need to follow the letter of the law.
D. Goodfellow referenced the Supreme Court of British Columbia, McLaren v. Castlegar (City), 2010 BCSC 1629 case and the similar problems with the buildings in that case to the problems at 14A Helmcken Road. D. Goodfellow noted that this case was referenced in detail at the June 2, 2015 hearing and the similar problems noted. D. Goodfellow also referenced McLaren's submission to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court's reference to City of Castlegar's staff report to Council wherein that staff is of the opinion that given the condition of McLaren's buildings and the cost to repair these to BC Building Code standards, there is the potential for remediating to exceed the cost of demolishing them. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed McLaren's arguments about the City of Castlegar's staff not having evidence for the cost of remediation work versus the cost of demolition as being a reason for setting aside the City of Castlegar's remedial action order. D. Goodfellow noted that unlike the McLaren case, Town staff has referenced the Marshall Swift Construction Calculator that the Town of View Royal Council adopted use of and G. Faykes used in calculating replacement cost of the building, noting the cost of demolition is less than the Marshall Swift Construction Calculator calculation.
D. Goodfellow noted that nothing has changed at the site since the June 2, 2015 hearing. The current fence on the property does not prevent anyone from breaking in and, in terms of lead testing, Northwest Environmental recommended in their report that samples be taken.
R. Batchelor stated his clients have thought this through and now have a plan in place whereas at the last hearing, there was not a plan in place; especially in regard to costs. Council reminded Mr. Batchelor that although Mr. and Mrs. Alcock did not know costs, they did have the option of remediation beginning on September 25, 2014. R. Batchelor stated his clients are requesting one last chance to sort out the situation in a manner that makes the most economic sense.
Councillor Mattson noted that although this situation is of the property owners making, he feels that Mr. and Mrs. Alcock should be given a last chance to remediate and strip the drywall off to the studs as well as to have a structural engineer assess the third floor of the home.
Councillor Rast stated that she was disappointed that Mr. and Mrs. Alcock had not gone in and done preliminary explorations, although some reasons were given as to why this was not done. She feels that she has not seen enough change to think that the property is going in the right direction for the community.
Councillor Rogers stated that while some new information has been provided including "kit" house information, raising the building, and rezoning to permit commercial uses, since the last hearing, it is seemingly rudderless and will take an enormous amount of time. This issue has been ongoing since 2011 or earlier and he is concerned that things will just carry on in the same manner and not move further ahead. He expressed concern that there is an enormous amount of damage done to the home. There are huge opportunities for this property, but not for this building.
Mayor Screech stated he feels remediation work should have taken place between September 25, 2014 and the beginning of June 2015, prior to the first hearing. He feels that no effort has been made by the owner to rectify the situation. He also stated his concerns about the process and timelines and stated that Mr. and Mrs. Alcock had many months to respond to the Town but chose not to. Mayor Screech stated his support for rezoning in the area and stated he would be willing to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Alcock to discuss this initiative.
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
C-71-15
THAT Council’s Declarations and Resolutions/Order made June 2, 2015 (“June 2, 2015 Order”) be affirmed:
THAT the remedial action process outlined in sections 72 through 80 as well as sections 17, 80 and 258 of the Community Charter, SBC 2003, c. 26 be initiated, and:
- the building on the property with a civic address of 14A Helmcken Road, Victoria, British Columbia and with a legal description of Lot A, Section 9, Esquimalt District, Plan 35416, Parcel Identifier: 000-345-342 (the “Property”) is so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive to the community, is hazardous to those persons who may enter or occupy the building, and a nuisance;
- the building on the Property (the “Building”) is in or creates an unsafe condition in that the building fails to comply with the Town of View Royal (the “Town”)’s Safe Premises Bylaw No. 652, 2007 (“Safe Premises Bylaw”), Town’s Property Maintenance Bylaw No. 512, 2013 (“Property Maintenance Bylaw”), and British Columbia Building Code, which contraventions relate to the construction or safety of the building on the Property (“Building”);
- Phillip and Janice Alcock, the registered owners of the Property, are ordered to pull down and demolish the Building, remove all debris from the Property and thereafter construct/install a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the Property, within 30 days of the resolution being served in accordance with section 77 of the Community Charter;
- In the event that the owners fail to comply with the order of Council, Council further orders and thereby authorizes the Town’s Building Inspector or his designate, to pull down and demolish the Building, remove all demolition debris from the site and thereafter construct/install a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the Property in accordance with section 17, as well as section 80, if applicable, of the Community Charter, and at the owners’ expense; and
- if the owners fail to comply with the order of Council, and the Town fulfills the requirements of the order of the Council, the costs that the Town incurs in so doing will be at the expense of the owners, and in the event of the owners’ default of paying the costs by December 31 in the year in which the Town fulfills the requirements of the order of Council, the costs will be added to the owners’ property taxes and deemed to be taxes in arrears, in accordance with sections 17 and 258 of the Community Charter.
CARRIED Councillor Mattson voted in the negative
b) Chilco Road Addressing
- Report dated June 26, 2015 from the Planner
The Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation to Council.
Council and staff discussed costs associated with the proposed change of address.
a) Email dated July 5, 2015 from D. & M. Marrs, 2450 Chilco Road, Re: Chilco Addressing
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
THAT the email dated July 5, 2015 from D. & M. Marrs, 2450 Chilco Road, Re: Chilco Addressing be received.
CARRIED
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
C-72-15
THAT Option C, replacing the suggested name of “Cheam Road” with “Lund Road”, be approved for Thetis Vale addressing;
AND THAT 12 months of Canada Post mail forwarding be provided for existing residents and owners whose addresses are changing as a result of this process.
CARRIED
c) Strata Conversion of Previously Occupied Building – 235 Island Highway
- Report dated July 2, 2015 from the Senior Planner
The Senior Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation to Council.
MOVED BY: Councillor Weisgerber SECONDED: Councillor Rast
C-73-15
THAT the strata conversion of the previously occupied building at 235 Island Highway be approved subject to completion of the following:
a. building repairs and upgrades specified in the Friday, May 8, 2015 inspection report prepared by Eric Barker Architect; b. work in and around the building requiring a building permit; and c. exterior renovations in general accordance with Development Permit No. 2011/12.
CARRIED Councillor Rogers voted in the negative
d) Expiration of Land Use Contracts
- Report dated June 30, 2015 from the Director of Development Services
Council and staff discussed communication with current strata presidents and future rezoning costs being absorbed by the Town.
MOVED BY: Councillor Mattson SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
C-74-15
THAT the report dated June 30, 2015 from the Director of Development Services titled “Expiration of Land Use Contracts” be received for information.
CARRIED
8.2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RESOLUTIONS
8.3 OTHER REPORTS
a) Minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Annual General Meeting held June 12, 2014
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
THAT the minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Annual General meeting held June 12, 2014 be received.
CARRIED
b) Minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Board of Directors meeting held May 14, 2015
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
THAT the minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Board of Directors meeting held May 14, 2015 be received.
CARRIED
c) Minutes of the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting held May 26, 2015
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
THAT the minutes of the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting held May 26, 2015 be received.
CARRIED
d) Minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Annual General meeting held June 11, 2015
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber
THAT the minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Annual General meeting held June 11, 2015 be received.
CARRIED
9. CORRESPONDENCE
9.1 FOR ACTION
9.2 FOR INFORMATION
a) Letter dated June 10, 2015 from C. & E. Holtum and C. & B. Bucchan, Re: Marking the Polly Place Water Access
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Rast
THAT the letter dated June 10, 2015 from C. & E. Holtum and C. & B. Bucchan, Re: marking the Polly Place water access be received for information.
CARRIED
b) Letter dated June 12, 2015 from L. Ackerman, Chair, Peace River Regional District, Re: Order in Council No. 148
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Rast
THAT the letter dated June 12, 2015 from L. Ackerman, Chair, Peace River Regional District, Re: Order in Council No. 148 be received for information.
CARRIED
10. BYLAWS
a) Storm Water Regulation Bylaw No. 902, 2015 A Bylaw to Provide for the Regulation the Use of the Drainage System and Disposition of Storm Water
MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Rast
THAT Storm Water Regulation Bylaw No. 902, 2015 be given adopted.
CARRIED
b) Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 927, 2015 A Bylaw to Amend the Town of View Royal Zoning Bylaw with Respect to the Rezoning of 148 Atkins Road (third reading and adoption) *moved before item 8.1 (a)
c) Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 928, 2015 A Bylaw to Amend the Town of View Royal Zoning Bylaw with Respect to Creating the CD-9D (Lakeside Village Mixed Commercial) Zone and with Respect to the Rezoning of 430 Six Mile Road (third reading and adoption) *moved before item 8.1 (a)
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. QUESTION PERIOD
13. MOTIONS & NOTICES OF MOTION
14. CLOSED MEETING RESOLUTION
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
THAT there is a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of Council, officers and employees of the Town, and those identified under Section 91 (2) of the Community Charter shall be excluded on the basis of Section 90 (1)(k) – discussion of a municipal service.
CARRIED
15. TERMINATION
MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers
THAT this meeting now terminate. Time: 9:14 pm
CARRIED
Document Images
(11)
